Giving data a tangible form is promising to foster understanding and engagement. Nevertheless, analyses of current data physicalisations revealed that the majority do not use the potential of material and multimodality. We propose image schemas as a tool for facilitating the creation of data physicalisations, as these abstract mental representations of interactions with the world promise to advance design. In an earlier stage, we developed tangible instantiations of image schemas, so called Image Schema Objects to make image schema theory useable as design tool. In this work, we describe the tools' assessment: used by designers to envision concepts for data physicalisations. We gathered qualitative and quantitative data to assess the efect and use of the tools. Even no evidence for impact on the design process was found, participants and expert rater assessed the ideas to be more active and participants also as more innovative.
Data physicalisations are artefacts that convey data through their material characteristics or shape [
A “physical artifact whose geometry or material properties encode data” [
The data physicalisation community has been engaged in analysing current data physicalisations and
developing theoretical frameworks [
In 1987, Lakof [ 55] and Johnson [23] presented image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Image schemas were described as “recurring, dynamic pattern[s] of perceptual interactions and motor programs that give coherence and structure to our experience” [23](p. xiv). They connect embodied sensations and mental representations [23, 55], thereby organising human perception and experiences and advancing our comprehension of the world [26, 8, 56, 57, 11]. For instance, the UP-DOWN image schema is encountered in daily life (e.g., when we use an elevator to get to the upper floor, or when we place objects on the floor or in a high shelf), but also in data representations (e.g., high and low columns in a bar chart or a graph moving up or down).
When a specific image schema is attributed to an abstract notion that lacks a physical equivalent, an image-schematic metaphor develops [9, 28, 24, 11]. Mapping image schemas to abstract domains allows to reason about these domains [23]. The image schema UP-DOWN is linked to a number of abstract domains. For instance, it is connected with our experience of quantity, which forms the image-schematic metaphor MORE IS UP – LESS IS DOWN. A high stack of books (UP) indicates a large number, similar to a high column representing a big data value.
Using image schemas in interface design demonstrated to foster the development of more innovative [14, 17, 11, 18] and intuitive [19, 20, 21, 22, 14, 17, 10, 15] designs. Furthermore, image schemas showed to work as inspiration to promote idea generation [12, 13, 9, 14, 15, 16, 11] and structured the design process [11]. However, applying image schemas in design requires additional time and efort [ 14, 15, 18]. It is recommended to utilise image schema lists to minimise this [25, 58, 18]. The Image Schema CATalouge (ISCAT) [59] provides such a list. It presents a comprehensive collection of image schemas and metaphors, but due to its amount of information and intricate structure it does not provide an easily applicable design tool. Furthermore, research showed that image schemas’ understanding and their efect on the design process is contingent upon their way of instantiation [ 27, 28, 29]. The utilisation of tangible representations was found to enhance the development of more visual, haptic, and interactive design concepts, whereas visual representations were easier to identify and showed to encourage the generation of a greater number of ideas [60].
Also in the context of data physicalisation, image schemas can enhance creativity [12, 13, 9, 14, 15, 16, 11]. Because of their abstractness, they aford the designer greater flexibility, what facilitates the generation of more innovative solutions [24, 15]. Image schemas facilitate also the generation of more intuitive designs [22, 10, 21, 19, 20, 15, 14, 17]. Design decisions influenced by image schemas, reflect humans’ mental models [15] whereas image-schematic metaphors provide links to abstract domains [23]. Image schemas could assist in the selection and metaphorical use of materials related to the represented data, as well as the selection of meaningful metaphors. Derived from interactive experiences with the environment [23], image schemas can be classified as static or dynamic [ 26, 61]. This may foster the creation of more interactive and active design concepts, while their multimodal nature [23, 24, 9, 25, 26] could encourage the development of more multisensory designs. However, an easily applicable method of expressing and incorporating image schemas as design tools is necessary to overcome the extra time and efort required to use image schemas for design.
In previous work, we created tangible design tools based on image schema theory [31]. For these tangible Image Schema Objects (IS-Objects) we selected 14 image schemas, that were promising to support data physicalisation design. They are made of clay and highlight in blue colour the key characteristics of each image schema (Figure 1). The objects embody image schemas and provide abstract tangible and material inspiration to the design process. They address diferent sensory modalities and their re-arrangeable parts are intended to foster more active and interactive design ideas.
In this work, we present the first evaluation of the tangible image schema instantiations as tool for designing data physicalisations. We examined the efect of the objects on the design activity as well as the resulting ideas. We expect the tools to create a more positive design process experience, like a higher experience of flow and performance and less concern, lower task demand, mental demand, efort and frustration. Regarding the efect on the design ideas, we expect the IS-Objects to foster more innovative, intuitive, active, interactive, multimodal and tangible ideas.
The study involved twenty-two design experts and students. Participants’ mean age was 25.73 years (SD = 3.87 years), while the mean experience in design was 6.75 years (SD = 6.29 years). The session commenced with giving informed consent, the presentation of a brief video to introduce the concept of Design Process Design Process Design Process Design Process Design Process Design Process Design Process Design Process Innovativeness Intuitiveness Activity Interactivity Multimodality Tangibility
Vari
Questionnaire
Scale Flow Short Scale: Flow [62] Flow Short Scale: Concern [62] Flow Short Scale: Task Demand [62] NASA-TLX: Mental Demand [63] NASA-TLX: Efort [63] NASA-TLX: Frustration [63] NASA-TLX: Performance [63] Interview Questions Observation UEQ+: Novelty [64] UEQ+: Intuitive Use [64] Self-developed scale Self-developed scale Interview question Self-developed scale 7-point Lickert scale, 1 = not at all to 4 = partly to 7 = very much 7-point Lickert scale,1 = not at all to 4 = partly to 7 = very much 9-point Lickert scale, 1 = too low to 5 = just right to 7 = too high 20-point Lickert scale, 1 = Very Low to 20 = Very High 20-point Lickert scale, 1 = Very Low to 20 = Very High 20-point Lickert scale, 1 = Very Low to 20 = Very High 20-point Lickert scale, 1 = Failure to 20 = Perfect “Did you feel more positive about the idea generation process from the first or second task? Why?” 7-point Lickert scales, 1-7, dull-creative, conventional-inventive, usual-leading edge, conservative-innovative 7-point Lickert scales, 1-7, dificult-easy, illogicallogical, not plausible-plausible, inconclusiveconclusive 7-point Lickert Scale, 1 = passive to 7 = active 7-point Lickert Scale, 1 = not interactive to 7 = interactive “Which senses were addressed?” 7-point Lickert Scale, 1 = visual to 7 = physical data physicalisation, and a questionnaire requesting demographic information and design experience. The initial task, which lasted twenty minutes, started with providing written instructions and the dataset (included as Supplementary Material A and B). The participants were required to devise and illustrate design concepts to physicalise the provided dataset. During the design action, observations were made, and videos were recorded. Subsequently, participants provided a brief interview in which they shared their thoughts on the generated ideas and completed a series of questionnaires. A short break followed. In the second part, participants were required to conduct the assignment once more, now using the IS-Objects. The participants again completed the design assignment, interview, and questionnaires. Additionally, we now asked participants in the interview to compare ideas and design processes. The design task without IS-Objects which was conducted initial, and the subsequent design task applying IS-Objects were conducted in a univariate within-subject design. This order was chosen to avoid the IS-Objects influencing the without-tool-condition. The study was approved by the university’s ethics board.
For collecting data regarding the dependent variables 1) design process experience and 2) rating of design ideas, the questionnaires and scales listed in Table 1 were employed. The full questionnaires and interview questions are provided as Supplementary Material C and D.
The interview data was organised and analysed using Contextual Design as approach for data analysis [65]. For analysing the quantitative data we used the statistics software JASP [66]. Additionally, using the same questionnaires, an expert in data physicalisation design, who has been active in the field as a researcher and designer since 2019, evaluated the design ideas. For this, the participant-produced drawings were accompanied by bullet-point explanations excerpted from the interviews and provided in randomised order to the expert.
Dependent t-Tests were employed to evaluate significant diferences across conditions. When data was not normally distributed or when outliers appeared, we employed the Wilcoxon-Signed-Ranked test. No data values were missing, and no outliers were excluded. We set the significance level at alpha = .05. The Bonferoni-Holm p-values were employed to adjust the multivariate findings of the participant self-assessment and the expert rater’s evaluation. To assess multimodality, the number of sensory modalities which were addressed by the generated ideas were set in relation to the total number of generated ideas. We diferentiated full ideas (count 1) and ideas that were added to or varied from previous ideas (count 0.5). Table 2 presents the results of the questionnaires used to gauge the participants’ experience of the design activity.
Reviewing the observational data revealed that design processes were highly individualistic. We identified four methods for interacting with the IS-Objects: a) No Physical Interaction, b) Occasional Physical Interaction, c) Exploration Phase, and d) Exploration Phase & Occasional Interaction.
In the interviews participants indicated there was an excessive number of opportunities and distractions provided by the IS-Objects, which they perceived as overwhelming. Therefore, participants recommended to present less objects (P4, P2, P12, P21, P22, P5). Furthermore, it was perceived as challenging to simultaneously study the objects and develop ideas (P21, P22, P2). Some participants expressed that they were inspired by the artefacts (P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11). Others indicated that the Dependent variable Items
Descriptive Without M = 5.10 SD = 0.90 M = 2.33 SD = 1.46 M = 4.86 SD = 0.83 M = 11.23 SD = 4.02 M = 10.14 SD = 3.90 M = 5.41 SD = 5.00 M = 6.55 SD = 3.64
IS-Objects M = 5.06 SD = 1.12 M = 2.49 SD = 1.52 M = 4.91 SD = 97 M = 10.09 SD = 4.66 M = 9.27 SD = 5.22 M = 5.14 SD = 4.70 M = 6.82 SD = 5.52
Test results t(21) = .138, p = .554, d = .029 z = .879, p = .819, r = .267 z = .296, p = .655, r = .111 t(21) = .946, p = .117, d = 202 t(21) = .800, p = .216, d = 171 z = .052, p = .490, r = .015 z = .000, p = .509, r = .000 Design process Design process Design process Design process Design process Design process Design process
FSS: Flow FSS: Concern FSS: Task demand NASA-TLX: Mental demand NASA-TLX: Efort NASA-TLX: Frustration NASA-TLX:
Performance objects encouraged them to explore unconventional ways of thought, to diferentiate their ideas from the objects (P6, P8, P14). Furthermore, some participants (P6, P14, P16) expressed greater satisfaction with the ideas informed by IS-Objects. While some participants (P10, P15, P20) perceived the image schema names that accompanied the objects to be as or even more useful than the objects themselves, other participants (P19, P4, P3) placed greater value on the objects due to the visual support and the information, materiality, and properties, they provided. With regard to the dataset, the response of the participants once again demonstrated a divergence of opinions. While some (P6, P16) perceived the objects as facilitating their comprehension of the data, others (P5, P10, P13, P20) experienced dificulty in establishing a connection between the objects and the abstract data.
In a within-subject-design study we investigated if the utilisation of IS-Objects facilitates a less demanding design activity and encourages to generate more innovative, intuitive, active, interactive, multimodal, and tangible, design ideas.
Previous studies showed that image schemas can be used in a variety of design methods [14], structure [11], and guide the design process [9, 10]. In this work, image schemas were applied to the idea generation process for data physicalisations and four strategies for utilising the tools were identified, what proved the IS-Objects to be flexible and to adapt to individuals’ needs. Furthermore, our hypothesis expected that the IS-Objects foster a less demanding design process, in comparison to a design process without design tools. Lacking significant findings from the statistical analysis, the hypothesis cannot be confirmed. Previous research showing image schemas’ inspirative power [ 12, 13, 9, 14, 15, 16, 11] is supported by participants’ statements which revealed that IS-Objects provided inspiration and were helpful as a catalyst for thinking in unconventional directions. Other participants felt overwhelmed by the number and necessity to explore the objects or preferred the image schema names before the tangible objects. These contradicting results might be caused by the heterogenous group including design students as well as experienced designers. Perhaps participants with more design experience Dependent variable benefited from the objects, while novice designers felt more overwhelmed by the task and the tools. To investigate this further, an analysis how the tools integrate in designers’ workflows and thinking could provide insights.
Participants’ self-ratings of ideas’ innovativeness provided significant evidence. It confirms our hypothesis that IS-Objects foster more innovative ideas compared to ideas generated without. Also, the expert rater experienced ideas developed with IS-Objects to be more innovative, but without significant evidence. Furthermore, participants stated in interviews that using IS-Objects enabled them to create more creative ideas. This study confirms previous work which showed that user interfaces created with image schemas are more innovative [14, 17, 11, 18] and shows that image schemas can also foster the generation of more innovative ideas for data physicalisations.
Our hypothesis expected IS-Objects to foster more intuitive ideas, cannot be verified. While some
participants found the objects helpful in identifying visualisation options for abstract data, other
participants found it dificult to make the connection. Also, statistical analysis provided no evidence.
According to previous studies, interfaces created by using image schemas as a design strategy are more
intuitive [19, 20, 21, 22, 14, 17, 10, 15]. This is not verified for the IS-Objects in the data physicalisation
domain. The lack of evidence might be explained as previous methods identified image schemas in spatial
location and motion [67] or retrieved them from analysing the context of use [9, 10] and then integrated
them into interactive system designs. Users’ mental models within specific domains of application were
identified and subsequently incorporated into the design. In contrast, in our study, image schemas were
selected because of their prospective value for supporting and addressing the underutilised possibilities
of data physicalisation design, but without considering the context of the dataset. As mentioned in
literature, using pre-existing selections, risks to ignore the afordances of a particular domain [ 25].
Furthermore, the way we introduced image schemas difered from previous approaches. There was
no introduction or instruction; only tangible representations and the names of the image schemas
were given. In previous research, image schema theory was deliberately introduced or training was
conducted [67, 9, 14, 10, 11]. Furthermore, we provided image schemas without their metaphorical
extensions. Nevertheless, the lack of intuitiveness could be an advantage for data physicalisation design.
Data physicalisations aim to provide a richer experience [34, 35], in contrast to information visualisation
that is frequently evaluated in terms of efectiveness and eficiency [
The fact that data physicalisations are often passive and lack interactivity is one of their main design
challenges [
The ideas developed with IS-Objects were perceived to be more tangible by the participants and experts in descriptive numbers. Significant evidence supporting our hypothesis was only found in the participants’ ratings. However, the questionnaires between conditions may have sensitised participants also regarding tangibility and confounded this result. Numerous research showed the importance of image schemas’ form of representation and its influence on the design process [ 27, 28, 29]. The implementation of tangible image schema representations showed to enhance the development of more interactive, visual and tangible design ideas [60]. However, in this study a few participants indicated that the names of image schemas presented on little stands, were beneficial. It is challenging to discern the efects of the tangible representation from those of the labels. However, in general image schemas are promising to encourage a shift from visual towards tangible data representations. Here further research is required.
The administration of questionnaires in between the two design assignments might influenced the subsequent design process. To assess innovativeness and intuitiveness the UEQ+ subscales Innovativeness and Intuitive Use were applied, which each consist of four bipolar items. In contrast, tangibility, activity, and interactivity were each assessed by a single-item-scale. These may had a more pronounced influence on participants. Another constraint was that participants scored all their design ideas at once. In contrast, the expert rater evaluated each idea on its own, what may enhanced expert’s ratings. Contrary, as the expert was provided with the created sketches and succinct bullet point explanations, it is possible that the activity, interactivity, and targeted sensory modalities of the concepts were not represented adequately what could lead to lower expert ratings, compared to self-ratings.
To investigate the influence of IS-Objects on the data physicalisation design activity and the resulting ideas, we conducted an evaluation study. Although the artefacts were perceived as inspirational, there was no significant evidence to confirm their influence on the design process. This work showed that participants perceived their concepts envisioned using IS-Objects to be more innovative. Experts and participants evaluated the concepts as being more active. Overall, the objects received mixed responses. A series of suggestions and insights with a view to applying the IS-Objects to the data physicalisation design process were collected. In the next step, the IS-Objects are integrated into a toolkit.
We want to thank the universities and universities of applied sciences which provided the opportunity to data collection. Furthermore, we want to thank Eric Hauke for his support in data collection and the expert rater for rating the design ideas.
[6] C. Lallemand, M. Oomen, The Candy Workshop: Supporting Rich Sensory Modalities in Constructive Data Physicalization, in: S. Barbosa, C. Lampe, C. Appert, D. A. Shamma (Eds.), CHI EA ’22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, New Orelans LA USA, 2022, pp. 1–7. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519648. doi:Path10.1145/3491101.3519648, april 29-May 05, 2022, New Orleans, Los Angeles, USA. [7] R. Van Koningsbruggen, H. Waldschütz, E. Hornecker, What is Data? - Exploring the Meaning of Data in Data Physicalisation Teaching, in: D. Saakes, J. Eune, A. Esteves, Y.-W. Park, A. Girouard (Eds.), TEI ’22: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Daejeon Republic of Korea, 2022, pp. 1–21. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3501319. doi:Path10.1145/3490149.3501319, february 13-16, 2022, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. [8] D. Bourou, M. Schorlemmer, E. Plaza, Image Schemas and Conceptual Blending in Diagrammatic Reasoning: The Case of Hasse Diagrams, in: A. Basu, G. Stapelton, C. Legg, E. Manalo, P. Viana (Eds.), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, volume 12909 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2021, pp. 297–314. doi:Path10.1007/978-3-030-86062231. [9] J. Hurtienne, J. H. Israel, K. Weber, Cooking up real world business applications combining physicality, digitality, and image schemas, in: A. Schmidt, H. Gellersen, E. v. d. van den Hoven, A. Mazalek, P. Holleis, N. Villar (Eds.), TEI ’08: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Bonn Germany, 2008, pp. 239–246. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347443. doi:Path10.1145/1347390.1347443, february 18-20, 2008, Bonn, Germany. [10] J. Hurtienne, K. Weber, L. Blessing, Prior Experience and Intuitive Use: Image Schemas in User Centred Design, in: P. Langdon, J. Clarkson, P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing Inclusive Futures, 1 ed., Springer, London, 2008, pp. 107–116. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-211-1_11. [11] R. Tscharn, Design of Age-Inclusive Tangible User Interfaces Using Image-Schematic Metaphors, in: M. Inakage, H. Ishii, E. Y.-L. Do, J. Steimle, O. Shaer, K. Kunze, R. Peiris (Eds.), TEI ’17: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Yokohama Japan, 2017, pp. 693–696. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3025036. doi:Path10.1145/3024969.3025036, march 20-23, 2017, Yokohama, Japan. [12] J. Hurtienne, Image Schemas and Design for Intuitive Use, Doctoral dissertation, Technische
Universität Berlin, Berlin, 2011. doi:Path10.14279/depositonce-2753. [13] J. Hurtienne, J. H. Israel, Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction, in: B. Ullmer, A. Schmidt (Eds.), TEI ’07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Baton Rouge Lousiana, 2007, pp. 127–134. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1226996. doi:Path10.1145/1226969.1226996, february 15-17, 2007, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. [14] J. Hurtienne, K. Klöckner, S. Diefenbach, C. Nass, A. Maier, Designing with Image Schemas: Resolving the Tension Between Innovation, Inclusion and Intuitive Use, Interacting with Computers 27 (2015) 235–255. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu049. doi:Path10.1093/iwc/iwu049. [15] D. Löfler, A. Hess, A. Maier, J. Hurtienne, H. Schmitt, Developing Intuitive User Interfaces by Integrating Users’ Mental Models into Requirements Engineering, in: S. Love, K. Hone, T. McEwan (Eds.), BCS-HCI ’13: Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference, BCS Learning & Development Ltd., London, UK, 2013, pp. 1–10. doi:Path10.14236/ewic/HCI2013.14, journal Abbreviation: HCI 2013 - 27th International British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Conference: The Internet of Things Publication Title: HCI 2013 - 27th International British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Conference: The Internet of Things September 9-13, 2013, London, United Kingdom. [16] D. Löfler, K. Lindner, J. Hurtienne, Mixing Languages’: image schema inspired designs for rural Africa, in: M. Jones, P. Palanque, A. Schmidt, T. Grossman (Eds.), CHI EA ’14: CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto Ontario Canada, 2014, pp. 1999–2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581356. doi:Path10.1145/2559206.2581356, journal Abbreviation: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings Publication Title: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings April 26-May 1, 2014, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [17] J. Hurtienne, D. Reinhardt, Texture Metaphors and Tangible Interaction: No Smooth Relationship?, in: M. Inakage, H. Ishii, E. Y.-L. Do, J. Steimle, O. Shear, K. Kunze, R. Peiris (Eds.), TEI ’17: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Yokohama Japan, 2007, pp. 79–87. URL: https:// doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3024986. doi:Path10.1145/3024969.3024986, march 20-23, 2017, Yokohama, Japan. [18] A. Winkler, K. Baumann, S. Huber, R. Tscharn, J. Hurtienne, Evaluation of an Application Based on Conceptual Metaphors for Social Interaction Between Vehicles, in: M. Foth, W. Ju, R. Schroeter, S. Viller (Eds.), DIS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Brisbane QLD Australia, 2016, pp. 1148–1159. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901876. doi:Path10.1145/2901790.2901876, june 04-08, 2016, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. [19] A. N. Antle, G. Corness, S. Bakker, M. Droumeva, E. van den Hoven, A. Bevans, Designing to Support Reasoned Imagination through Embodied Metaphor, in: N. Bryan-Kinns, M. D. Gross, H. Johnson, J. Ox, R. Wakkary (Eds.), C&C ’09: Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition, Association for Computing Machinery, Berkeley California USA, 2009, pp. 275–284. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1640233.1640275. doi:Path10.1145/1640233.1640275, october 26-30, 2009, Berkeley, California, USA. [20] A. N. Antle, G. Corness, M. Droumeva, What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments, Interacting with Computers 21 (2009) 66–75. doi:Path10.1016/j.intcom.2008.10.005. [21] A. N. Antle, M. Droumeva, G. Corness, Playing with the sound maker: do embodied metaphors help children learn?, in: J. Cassell (Ed.), IDC ’08: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children, Association for Computing Machinery, Chicago Illinois, 2008, pp. 178–185. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1463689.1463754. doi:Path10.1145/1463689.1463754, july 11-13, 2008, Chicago, IL, USA. [22] Design for intuitive use - Testing Image Schema Theory for User Interface Design, ICED, Paris France, ???? URL: https://www.designsociety.org/publication/27298/DS+42%3A+Proceedings+ of+ICED+2007%2C+the+16th+International+Conference+on+Engineebooktitle={{DS}42: {Proceedings}of{ICED}2007,the16th{International}{Conference}on{Engineering}{Design}}, publisher={theDesignSociety},author={Hurtienne,JÃűrnandBlessing,Lucienne},editor={Bocquet, J.-C.},month=jul,year={2007},note={July28-31,2007,Paris,France},pages={829--830},. [23] M. Johnson, The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, US, 1987. [24] Image schemas: a new language for user interface design?, FortschrittBerichte VDI: Mensch-Maschine-Systeme, Düsseldorf, Germany, ???? URL: https: //www.researchgate.net/publication/277008326_Image_schemas_a_new_language_ for_user_interface_design/link/567d728308ae19758387number={21},booktitle= {Prospektive{Gestaltung}von{Mensch}-{Technik}-{Interaktion}},publisher={VDIVerlag}, author={Hurtienne,JÃűrnandThuering,ManfredandBlessing,Lucienne},editor={RÃűtting, MatthiasandWozny,GÃijntherandKlostermann,AnneandHuss,JÃűrg},month=jan,year={2007}, pages={167--172},. [25] J. Hurtienne, How Cognitive Linguistics Inspires HCI: Image Schemas and ImageSchematic Metaphors, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 33 (2016) 1–20. doi:Path10.1080/10447318.2016.1232227. [26] T. R. Besold, M. M. Hedblom, O. Kutz, A narrative in three acts: Using combinations of image schemas to model events, Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 19 (2017) 10–20. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2016.11.001. doi:Pathhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2016.11.001. [27] J. Hurtienne, O. Meschke, Soft Pillows and the Near and Dear: Physical-to-Abstract Mappings with Image-Schematic Metaphors, in: S. Bakker, C. Hummels, B. Ullmer, L. Geurts, B. Hengeveld, D. Saakes, M. Broekhuijsen (Eds.), TEI ’16: Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Eindhoven Netherlands, 2016, pp. 324–331. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839483. doi:Path10.1145/2839462.2839483, february 14-17, 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. [28] J. Hurtienne, C. Stößel, K. Weber, Sad is heavy and happy is light: population stereotypes of tangible object attributes, in: N. Villar, S. Izadi, M. Fraser, S. Benford (Eds.), TEI ’09: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Cambridge United Kingdom, 2009, pp. 61–68. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1517664. 1517686. doi:Path10.1145/1517664.1517686, february 16-18, 2009, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [29] A. Macaranas, A. N. Antle, B. E. Riecke, Bridging the gap: attribute and spatial metaphors for tangible interface design, in: R. Vertegaal, S. N. Spencer, Y. Rernaeus, A. Girouard, S. Jordà (Eds.), TEI ’12: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Kingston Ontario Canada, 2012, pp. 161–168. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2148131.2148166. doi:Path10.1145/2148131.2148166, february 19-22, 2012, Ontario, Canada. [30] C. Baur, F. Stamm, C. Wienrich, J. Hurtienne, Multimodal meets Intuitive? Comparing Visual and Tangible Image Schema Representations, in: Proceedings of The Eight Image Schema Day, CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org), Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, 2024. [31] C. Baur, C. Wienrich, J. Hurtienne, Form Follows Mental Models: Finding Instantiations of Image Schemas Using a Design Research Approach, in: F. F. Mueller, S. Greuter, R. A. Khot, P. Sweester, M. Obrist (Eds.), DIS ’22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, Virtual Event Australia, 2022, pp. 586–598. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533451. doi:Path10.1145/3532106.3533451, event-place: Virtual Event, Australia. [32] T. Hogan, U. Hinrichs, Y. Jansen, S. Huron, P. Gourlet, E. Hornecker, B. Nissen, Pedagogy & Physicalization: Designing Learning Activities around Physical Data Representations, in: O. Mival, M. Smyth, P. Dalsgaard (Eds.), DIS ’17 Companion: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Edinburgh United Kingdom, 2017, pp. 345–347. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3064857.3064859. doi:Path10.1145/3064857.3064859, june 10-14, 2017, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. [33] S. Huron, P. Gourlet, U. Hinrichs, T. Hogan, Y. Jansen, Let’s Get Physical: Promoting Data Physicalization in Workshop Formats, in: O. Mival, M. Smyth, P. Dalsgaard (Eds.), DIS ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Edinburgh United Kingdom, 2017, pp. 1409–1422. doi:Pathhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064798, june 10-14, 2017, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. [34] S. Stusak, A. Aslan, Beyond physical bar charts: An exploration of designing physical visualizations, in: M. Jones, P. Palanque, A. Schmidt, T. Grossman (Eds.), CHI EA ’14: CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto Ontario Canada, 2014, pp. 1381–1386. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581311. doi:Path10.1145/2559206.2581311, apr 26-May 01, 2014, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [35] A. Vande Moere, Beyond the Tyranny of the Pixel: Exploring the Physicality of Information Visualization, in: E. Banissi (Ed.), IV ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 12th International Conference Information Visualisation, IEEE Computer Society, New York, NY, USA, 2008, pp. 469–474. URL: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/IV.2008.84. doi:Path10.1109/IV.2008.84, july 9-11, 2008, London, United Kingdom. [36] Y. Jansen, P. Dragicevic, J.-D. Fekete, Evaluating the Eficiency of Physical Visualizations, in: W. E.
Mackay, S. Brewster, S. Bødker (Eds.), CHI ’13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Paris France, 2013, pp. 2593–2602. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481359. doi:Path10.1145/2470654.2481359, april USA. [50] A. Vande Moere, S. Patel, The Physical Visualization of Information: Designing Data Sculptures in an Educational Context, in: M. L. Huang, Q. V. Nguyen, K. Zhang (Eds.), Visual Information Communication, 1 ed., Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2009, pp. 1–23. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4419-0312-9_1. [51] J. Zhao, A. Vande Moere, Embodiment in Data Sculpture: A Model of the Physical Visualization of Information, in: S. Tsekeridou, A. D. Cheok, K. Giannakis, J. Karigiannis (Eds.), DIMEA ’08: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, DIMEA ’08, Association for Computing Machinery, Athens Greece, 2008, pp. 343–350. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1413634.1413696. doi:Path10.1145/1413634.1413696, september 10-12, 2008, Athens, Greece. [52] R. Van Koningsbruggen, L. Haliburton, B. Rossmy, C. George, E. Hornecker, B. Hengeveld, Metaphors and ‘Tacit’ Data: the Role of Metaphors in Data and Physical Data Representations, in: L. Ciolfi, T. Hogan, T. Döring, T. Jenkins, J. van Dijk, S. Huron, Z. Li, D. Coyle, B. Signer (Eds.), TEI ’24: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, Cork Ireland, 2024, pp. 1– 17. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3623509.3633355. doi:Path10.1145/3623509.3633355, event-place: <conf-loc>, <city>Cork</city>, <country>Ireland</country>, </conf-loc>. [53] E. Hornecker, Creative Idea Exploration within the Structure of a Guiding Framework: The Card Brainstorming Game, in: M. Coelho, J. Zigelbaum, H. Ishii, R. J. Jacob, P. Maes, T. Pederson, O. Shaer, R. Wakkary (Eds.), TEI ’10: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, Cambridge Massachusetts USA, 2010, pp. 101–108. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709905. doi:Path10.1145/1709886.1709905, january 25-27, 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. [54] J. Wijers, H. Brombacher, S. Houben, DataChest: a Constructive Data Physicalization Toolkit, in: L. Ciolfi, T. Hogan, T. Döring, T. Jenkins, J. van Dijk, S. Huron, Z. Li, D. Coyle, B. Signer (Eds.), TEI ’24: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, Cork Ireland, 2024, pp. 1–7. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3623509.3635252. doi:Path10.1145/3623509.3635252, event-place: <conf-loc>, <city>Cork</city>, <country>Ireland</country>, </conf-loc>. [55] G. Lakof, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, US, 1987.
Https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo3632089.html. [56] R. W. Gibbs, H. L. Colston, The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations, Cognitive Linguistics 6 (1995) 347–378. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6. 4.347. doi:Path10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.347, veröfentlich von De Gruyter Mouton, 2009. [57] G. Lakof, M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, US and London, Great Britain, 1980. [58] J. Hurtienne, C. Stößel, C. Sturm, A. Maus, M. Roetting, P. Langdon, J. Clarkson, Physical gestures for abstract concepts: Inclusive design with primary metaphors, Interacting with Computers 22 (2010) 475–484. doi:Path10.1016/j.intcom.2010.08.009. [59] J. Hurtienne, S. Huber, C. Baur, Supporting User Interface Design with Image Schemas: The ISCAT Database as a Research Tool, in: M. M. Hedblom, O. Kutz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Image Schema Day, CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org), Jönköping Sweden, 2022. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3140/paper4.pdf, march 24-25, 2022, Jönköping, Sweden. [60] J. Hurtienne, K. Klöckner, S. Diefenbach, C. Nass, A. Maier, Designing with Image Schemas: Resolving the Tension Between Innovation, Inclusion and Intuitive Use, Interacting with Computers 27 (2015) 235–255. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu049. doi:Path10.1093/iwc/iwu049. [61] M. M. Hedblom, O. Kutz, F. Neuhaus, Choosing the Right Path: Image Schema Theory as a Foundation for Concept Invention, Journal of Artificial General Intelligence 6 (2015) 21–54. doi:Path10.1515/jagi-2015-0003, issue: Computational Creativity, Concept Invention, and General Intelligence Issue. [62] F. Rheinberg, Die Flow-Kurzskala (FKS) übersetzt in verschiedene Sprachen The Flow-Short-Scale (FSS) translated into various languages, 2015. doi:Path10.13140/RG.2.1.4417.2243. [63] S. G. Hart, L. E. Staveland, Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research, Advances in psychology 52 (1988) 139–183. URL: https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9. doi:Pathhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9. [64] M. Schrepp, J. Thomaschewski, Eine modulare Erweiterung des User Experience Questionnaire, in: F. Alt, A. Bulling, T. Döring (Eds.), Usability Professionals (UP19), Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. und German UPA e.V., 2019, pp. 148–156. doi:Path10.18420/muc2019-up-0108. [65] K. Holtzblatt, H. Beyer, Contextual Design: Evolved, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2014. [66] JASP Team, JASP, 2024. URL: https://jasp-stats.org/. [67] S. Bakker, A. N. Antle, E. van den Hoven, Identifying embodied metaphors in children’s soundaction mappings, in: P. Paolini, F. Garzotto (Eds.), IDC ’09: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Association for Computing Machinery, Como Italy, 2009, pp. 140–149. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1551788.1551812. doi:Path10.1145/1551788.1551812, june, 3-5, 2009, Como, Italy. A. Instructions Task 1: Develop design ideas or concepts for data physicalisations that represent the provided dataset. Develop as many ideas as possible. Sketch the ideas and feel free to add notes to the sketches. The working time is 20 minutes. If you finish earlier, let the experimenter know.
Task 2: Develop design ideas or concepts for data physicalisations that represent the provided dataset. Use the available objects for inspiration. You may touch and interact with the objects. Develop as many ideas as possible. Sketch the ideas and feel free to add notes to the sketches. The working time is 20 minutes. If you finish earlier, let the experimenter know.
B. Datasets C02 emissions worldwide by country 2020 CO2 emissions: countries by share of global CO2 emissions in 2020 • China 30.65 % • U.S. 13.54 % • India 7.02 % • Russia 4.53 % • Japan 2.96 % • Germany 1.85 % • Canada 1.54 % • South Africa 1.30 % • Australia 1.13 %
• How old are you? • Which subject are you studying? • In which semester are you studying? • What is your Major? • Prior to your current studies, have you had any other design-related education/study/job? If yes, which one? • How much design experience do you have in years? Now that you have completed the design task, please evaluate the design ideas and concepts you have developed. Further, please evaluate how you experienced the ideation process you just went through. UEQ+: Novelty In my opinion, the idea/the design of the data physicalisations are: • dull – creative • conventional – inventive • dificult – easy • illogical – logical • not plausible – plausible • inconclusive – conclusive Self Developed Scales The data physicalisations are: • passive – active • not interactive – interactive • visual – tangible FSS Flow Shortscale During the ideation process, I felt:
Flow: UEQ+: Intuitive Use In my opinion, using the data physicalisations (reading the data or interacting with it) is • I felt just the right amount of challenge. • My thoughts/activities ran fluidly and smoothly. • I didn’t notice time passing. • I had no dificulty concentrating. • My mind was completely clear. • I was totally absorbed in what I was doing. • The right thoughts/movements occurred of their own accord. • I knew what I have to do each step of the way. • I felt that I had everything under control.
• I was completely lost in thought.
For me the requirements were ... too low – just right – too high NASA-TLX Now indicate for each of the dimensions below how much stress you felt. Please mark on the following scales to what extent you felt stressed or challenged by the task in the dimensions mentioned: • How mentally demanding was the task? (low – high) • How hard did you have to work to accomplish your level of performance? (low – high) • How successful were you in accomplishing what you were asked to do? (failure – perfect) • How insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed, and annoyed were you? (low – high) D. Interview Questions After task 1 and 2: After task 2: • Have you sketched all your ideas or could you have thought of more ideas? • If yes: How many more ideas could you have sketched? • –Presenting Ideas– • How would you rate the dificulty of the two datasets on scale of 1 (easy) to 7 (dificult)? • How did the objects influence your idea generation? • Would you rate your ideas from the first or second task as more creative? Why? • Did you feel more positive about the idea generation process from the first or second task? Why?